m i i » Mi^
USELESS AND CRUEL.
(A Medical View of the Vivisection Question.)
., M.R.C.8., L.S.A.,
THURSDAY, MARCH 5th, 1914.
THE BRITISH UNION FOR THE ABOLITION OF
32 Charing Ckoss, London, S.W.
,0iv*y \ -*j0\n * a^ m+
pa \r\fU let
The British Union
for the Abolition of Vivisection.
(The British Anti« Vivisection Society.)
Foundress : FKANCES POWER COBBE.
President and Hon. Secretary :
WALTER R. HADWEN, J. P., M.D., L.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., L.S.A., etc.
Are You a Member of the British Union ?
If you are, will you do all you can to help us in
our great work ?
If you are not, will you become a Member?
The Subscription of Membership is from 10/- per annum upwards.
For an Associate 3/- per annum. Life Member, £5.
PLEASE ADDRESS TO THE —
Secretary— Miss B. E. KIDD,
32 Charing Cross, London, S.W.,
from whom any literature upon the subject may be obtained.
Monthly Organ of the British Union.
High-class Articles on the Moral, Scientific, and Historical
Aspects of the Anti-Vivisection Question ;
Replies to the Research Defence Society ;
Racy Criticism of New Vivisectional " Cures" ;
Chronicle of the Month's Work, &c.
Should be read by all Humanitarians.
Specimen Copy sent post free to any address.
YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION ( t0 P S e de ) 3/- per annum.
Experiments on Living Animals:
Useless and Cruel.
ADDRESS BY DR. W. R, HADWEN.
Delivered at Newcastle-on-Tyne, Thursday, March 5th, 1914.
H PUBLIC meeting, promoted by the Newcastle-on-Tyne
Branch of the British Union for the Abolition of
Vivisection, was held in the Grand Assembly Rooms, Barras
Bridge, Newcastle-on-Tyne, on Thursday, March 5th, 1914, when
an address was delivered by Dr. W. R. Hadwen, J.P., on
" Experiments on Living Animals : Useless and Cruel." Mr.
Frank F. Worthington presided, and there was a large attendance.
Dr. Hadwen said: Mr. Chairman and friends, — The question
before us is : Is Vivisection right or is it wrong ? I do not think
we can for one single moment talk of any half-way house in dealing
with it, but we have definitely to face a clear and plain issue
— is vivisection right or is it wrong ?
Now, there is no question about it that this brings before us
a great moral issue. If, for the sake of argument, we take for
granted that vivisection is cruel, then undoubtedly, since every-
thing that is cruel is wrong, the practice of vivisection must be
wrong. If, also, we take for granted that good has been derived
from vivisection and that good results will be achieved from the
practice in the future, it is equally immoral, because we have no
right whatever to do evil that good may come. (Hear, hear).
And hence, which ever way one looks at it, even taking for
granted the position the vivisector takes up, vivisection, in our
opinion, is a practice which cannot be condoned.
Now, for some years past, in fact within the last century,
there has been a very 'great development of the humanitarian
sentiment. It is within that century that we have got rid of
slavery, upon the ground that the black man had equal rights
with the white man. During the same period we have got rid of
the traffic in young children, which has been abolished by means
of the Factories Acts, on the ground that young children had
rights as well as adults. During the same period we got rid of
the abuses and cruelties that were carried on in the army and
navy, such as keel-hauling in the latter and flogging in the former,
because it was laid down that our fighting men had equal rights
with .civilians, and that we had no right whatever to resort, in
dealing with them, to a species of barbarism that would not be
tolerated in the civilian population. During the same period we
have got rid of certain cruel sports, such as bull-baiting and cock-
fighting, because they were considered degrading to the moral
fibre of the times, and now we are approaching the question of
vivisection, and we are seeking to get that abolished on the ground
that these helpless, defenceless, speechless animals have their
rights, and that we are pleading on behalf of those who cannot
plead for themselves.
Inconsistency of the Law.
Now, their is another ground why we consider vivisection
wrong, and that is, that it is inconsistent with the true legal
spirit of this country. For instance, upon the Statute Book there
is what is called Martin's Act. Under that Act some hundreds of
persons are prosecuted every year throughout this country for
cruelty to animals. If a coster-monger drives a lame pony, or one
with a galled back, or in an emaciated or distressed condition, he
is promptly summoned by the R.S.P.C.A., or one of its branches,
or by the police, for perpetrating cruelty, and is brought before
It is no use whatever for that man to plead that a sick wife
and several children were dependent upon him, and that, therefore,
he was compelled to resort to this measure of cruelty in order to
gain a livelihood. The Bench would immediately tell him that
that was no excuse. He had been guilty of cruelty, and whatever
benefits might result from that cruelty they were bound to convict.
Now all we claim is this, that the scientists shall be placed on
the same level as the coster-monger, and we desire to see that the
scientists are accorded no right to do behind the laboratory door
what the coster-monger is not allowed to do in the open street.
But we are told that this is a medical question, and that,
therefore, the man in the street has nothing whatever to do with
it, and that he has no right to discuss it, and that this question
should be left to medical men to settle. Now, what I maintain is
this : the very moment you take a medical or scientific dogma,
and incorporate that medical or scientific dogma in an Act of
Parliament, you take it at once outside the range of medical law
and you make that question a public, social and political one.
This being so, the man in the street has as much right to deal
with that social and political problem as any philosopher in the
land. Consequently we say that this question, having become a
great political question, and one which lay Members of Parliament
are called upon to discuss, and upon which they are expected to
vote in accordance with the wishes of their constitutents, it
behoves the man in the street to look into it, that he may view it
A Question of History.
But I shall probably be told that the man in the street cannot
understand it, that the vivisection question is one which only
medical men can understand, and that the ordinary man in the
street cannot possibly grasp it. Here, as a medical man, I differ
entirely. It is not a question of understanding the intricacies of
any physiological or pathological question: that is not the point.
The question is this : Has there been any definite knowledge, have
there been any great beneficial results achieved by vivisection, or
not ? The moment you ask that question you at once raise an
issue which is not that of medical intricacies ; you take it outside
the range of physiological or pathological deductions, and make
it a pure question of history, and as a question of history I say
that the man in the street can understand it as well as any medical
man in the country. Take and investigate the subject. Go and
look back and see if such-and-such a so-called discovery from
vivisection has been achieved by vivisection, by experimentation
on living animals. This is a pure question of historical enquiry,
and in that respect the man in the street is quite as capable of
understanding the subject as any medical man in the land.
But more than that, I maintain that the ordinary man in the
street knows quite as much of this subject as the ordinary medical
man, simply because the great bulk of both classes know
nothing whatever about it. If you take the medical man and
cross-examine him upon it I think he will confess, in the majority
of cases, that he does not know anything about the subject. You
cannot understand it unless you make the subject one of in-
dependent study. Unless you investigate from an entirely
independent standpoint, unless you are educated upon it, you
cannot understand it. The investigation of this matter forms no
part of a medical curriculum. The individual is not trained in
any of the minutae of this business. It is a great mistake to
suppose that medical men generally are authorities upon the
subject of experimentation upon living animals. We are not out
to fight the medical men of this land — the 30,000 medical men
upon the Medical Register, who know nothing about it — we are
out to fight 400 or 500 vivisectors who are licensed by the British
Government, and who perform their 80,000 to 90,000 experiments
annually upon these poor, defenceless creatures. These are the
men we are out to fight. The medical profession knows nothing
about it, and practically, in this respect, the medical man is no
better off than the ordinary man in the street.
This is the reason why we seek to educate the public upon
this matter, because it has become a political question — and it is
going to be a great one — and, as this political question will have to
be solved and settled in the House of Commons, we are going to the
country to stir the heart of the people, that they may tell their
representatives in the House of Commons how they expect them
to vote upon it.
Now, you may ask, " What credentials have you to appeal to
us ? What gives you any authority to speak on this subject, more
than any other ordinary medical man"? Simply this: I have
studied both sides of the question, and the majority of my medical
colleagues have only accepted one side. I was brought up to
believe in vivisection ; I accepted at my college and university all
the assertions that were made in regard to vivisection, namely,
that great discoveries had been made by this practice, and that it
was the only means by which such discoveries could be achieved
in the future, and I took all this for granted, and I accepted it as
a matter of course. For some years after I was in active practice
I still believed in it, still backed up the assertions which I had so
readily accepted, until I was at last led to investigate the matter
for myself from an independent standpoint, and as the result of
that investigation I came to the conclusion that no knowledge
whatever had been gained by experiments upon animals but what
could have been gained, and had been gained, by other means of
a harmless character ; and further, I came to the conclusion that
nothing whatever had been gained from experimentation upon
living animals that had been of the slightest benefit in the
amelioration or the cure of any human ailment or disease.
Now, that is a very strong expression to make use of, and you
may say that it is a very stringent expression to use in the face of
the generally accepted opinion of the time. It is not a matter of
whether I am in a minority amongst medical men or in the
majority; that is not the point. We have not to deal with
majorities or minorities, but, as I said at the outset of my address,
we have to ask ourselves : Is Vivisection right or wrong? The
unanimity, or otherwise, of the medical profession makes no
difference to the right or wrong of a question, because the medical
profession has been unanimously wrong so many times that really
one has almost come to the conclusion that it never has been
unanimous except when it has been unanimously wrong.
(Laughter). Through the whole line of history minorities have,
as a rule, been in the right. But do not let us argue from that
standpoint, but let me press upon you again and again, that we
must ask ourselves : Is Vivisection right or is Vivisection wrong ?
You may say, " what led you to the conclusion at which you
have arrived ? Well, strange to say, it was the vivisectors them-
selves who converted me to anti-vivisection. I found that the
contradictions among the vivisectors were so great that there was
no vivisector who brought forward one single statement but what
another vivisector was always ready to come forward and contra-
dict it by performing precisely the same experiment as his
"Wandering- in the Dark."
I discovered that there was no finality about it, and what was
more, the vivisectors have so thoroughly realised that fact for
themselves that they began to ask, and they are urging now more
and more, that criminals should be handed over to them for
experimentation, because they find the experimentation upon the
lower animals is of such an unsatisfactory character. Dr. Preston
King, who has this year been elected Mayor of the ancient city of
Bath, wrote in the " Lancet " on September 30th, 1905 : —
" Consider for a moment what this would mean. At
present we are wandering in the dark, seeking vainly for
the light that these experiments alone can give. For
instance, is bovine tuberculosis communicable to man?
This question could for ever be set at rest by a few direct
experiments. Or take cancer. Is this catching from
man to man, and what is its cause ? During recent years
the use of anti-toxins has broken the ground in a field of
treatment before undreamed of. At present we can only
experiment with these on animals, and the results we obtain
must be accepted cautiously, for they are liable to the
errors of all reasonings from analogy."
That is how he looks upon the futility of animal experiment-
ation and the necessity for criminals to be handed over to the
vivisectors, so that they might perform their diabolical work upon
them. He explained that he would give them a choice between
that and hanging.
So much, then, for the reasons for the attitude which we
take. I do not expect everybody to rise to the ethical standard.
Unfortunately, we must be, I am afraid, such cowards, and
the cowardly element rises so pre-emiently in the breast of human
kind, that we are all more or less prone to take advantage of
others for our own benefit. Hence, when you come to talk about
the immorality of torturing creatures in a lower scale of animal
life than ourselves, in order that we might benefit from it, you
will find again and again the answer rises to the lips of those to
whom you are talking. "But if, by means of a little pain inflicted
upon these creatures — a dog, a cat, a rabbit or a guinea pig, you
can find benefits which would be of immense value to the human
race, why should it not be done?" Consequently, we are obliged
to lower our standard from that of the high morality, to which
every noble nature in the universe should rise, and show human
nature that the practice is not merely an immoral one, but an
unscientific and a useless one.
Three Scientific Objections.
I look upon it as unscientific upon three grounds. First of
all, the differences, anatomically and physiologically, between the
lower animals and man, are so great that you cannot argue
scientifically from an animal to a man. In the second place, you
never experiment upon a lower animal except when that animal
is in an abnormal condition. Supposing it be under the influence
of an anaesthetic, then the influence of that anaesthetic upon the
secretions and juices of the body will be such that it will throw
out of gear the possibility of arriving at anything like a
If, upon the other hand, the animal is not in an anasstheticised
state, then the fright and the pain of the poor creature will render
the condition abnormal, and as you can never expect to get a
normal result from an abnormal state, it is clear that upon that
issue the practice must be an unscientific one.
Then, in the third place, you can never judge of any results
in animal experimentation except by objective signs; that is, you
can only judge by what you see, and as no two persons ever see
the same object in precisely the same way, we may here get a
reason for the numerous contradictions which take place amongst
the vivisectors. You cannot find out that most important item
in investigation, the subjective symptoms, simply because the
animal cannot talk. You are shut up to objective signs, and
therefore are bound to get misleading results. The whole shores
of vivisection are strewn with the wrecks of exploded fallacies.
You simply get the unscientific issue which you might expect
from an unscientific process. Thus these three grounds are quite
sufficient to show that vivisection is unscientific.
But now for the first point, namely, that you cannot reason
from animals to man. In order to illustrate that, and press my
point, let us take a glimpse into the region of surgery. Now, w)
are told that surgery has made immense advances in late years.
I admit it.
What Caused Surgery to Advance ?
There have been enormous advances in surgical art. These
advances have been almost entirely limited to surgery in the
abdominal region. That is where practically all the great
discoveries or advances in surgical art have been made. There is
scarcely an organ, there is scarcely a growth of any kind in any
organ of the abdominal region, but can be successfully removed
by the surgeon.
What is the ground for all this advance? Immediately the
pro-vivisector says "experiments on animals!" All our advances
in surgery, we are told, depend upon experiments upon animals.
There are three things that have brought about this
magnificent result. The first was the discovery of anaesthetics.
By the discovery of anaesthetics the surgeon was able to take his
time about his work ; he was able to do it throughly ; he was not
worried to death and tortured in his mind by the thought of
the agony he was inflicting on the patient on the operating table.
Anaesthetics were the first foundation of successful advance in
surgery. Anaesthetics had nothing to do with experiments on
animals, for anaesthetics — ether, chloroform, and so on — were
discovered by the discoverers' experiments upon themselves.
And here let me say that this is a character of vivisection to
which I have no objection, for as long as the vivisectors will be
content to experiment upon one another I shall let them go on
with it until further orders. But I say don't be so cowardly,
whilst you talk of your wonderful self-sacrifice and all the rest of
it, as to be afraid to prove it. Don't be torturing these poor things
that cannot help themselves.
The first foundation was anaesthetics, and the second was the
adoption of aseptic methods in surgery — that is, absolute cleanli-
ness. It has nothing to do with experiments on animals; nothing
whatever. It was simply the outcome of common sense. We
know in days gone by it was considered the proper thing for a
surgeon always to keep one dirty coat, that he had perhaps used
for twenty years, hanging behind the operating theatre door, in
which to perform his operation, and dirt was considered to be of
no importance whatever; dirty surgery was the order of the day.
Semmelweis, who never performed an experiment upon an animal
in his life, was the first to introduce clean surgery into the
operating theatre, and bv means of that he was able to reduce in
the maternity wards in Vienna the death rate, which had
been 12 per cent, in one year (1847-48), to I per cent.
This had nothing to do with experiments on animals. Three
English surgeons, Lawson Tait, Granville Bantock, and Sir
William Savory, followed the same lines, and persisted in doing so
at a time when Listerism, or what is called a?itisepsis, was the
fashion over the whole world. They were ridiculed and black-
balled by the profession, but their successes could not be denied.
At last Lord Lester gave up the dangerous antiseptic spray, and
what is now the practice in our best hospitals is simply asepsis, or
strict surgical cleanliness such as was practised by these men.
The germs in the air can be disregarded altogether, and if you
concentrate your attention on killing them, you are much more
likely to kill your patient.
Now, the third thing in connection with successful abdominal
surgery, was the discovery of the right kind of ligature and
suture, that is, the sort of thread that might be used to tie or sew
together the organs that were to be left behind in the abdominal
cavity, so that there might not be irritation or inflammation set
up, resulting in septic poisoning, or that the patient might not die
through the ligature becoming rapidly absorbed, and the blocd
vessels giving way. This discovery of the right kind of ligature
is practically the whole question in abdominal surgery. Did we
learn how to ligature or suture correctly by experiments on the
lower animals ?
Animal Experiments Misleading.
Now, there is one man who stands out to-day above all others,
I suppose, as the leading authority upon abdominal surgery. I
refer to Sir Frederick Treves. Sir Frederick Treves, in his
speech delivered at Birmingham, in October, 1898, and published
in the " Lancet " on November 5th, 1898, said as follows: —
"Many years ago I carried out on the Continent sundry
operations upon the intestines of dogs, and such are the
differences between the human and the canine bowel that
when I came to operate on man I found that I was much
hampered by my new experience; that I had every thing to
unlearn, and that my experience had done little but to unfit
me to deal with the human intestine."
That man is a believer in vivisection; he is an authority upon
surgery. He is an authority upon that character of surgery which
has yielded the great glory for the art in modern times; and, in
the quotation I have made, he has thrown overboard experiments
on animals. And I say, in the question of ligature and suture, we
owe nothing to vivisection whatever.
Professor Lawson Tait, whose name you can conjure with in
every city on the continent of Europe, was perhaps the most
brilliant and successful abdominal surgeon of his time, and what
did he tell us ? That as long as ever he operated upon the basis
of experimentation on animals he did nothing but lose his patients,
but directly he gave that up he began to save them. And another
thing he said in a letter I have, "Vivisection has done nothing for
surgery but lead to horrible bungling."
Take another important operation — that of the removal of
stone from the kidney: and here I will quote another authority
who believes in vivisection — no less an authority than Sir Henry
Morris, who held the position of President of the Royal College
of Surgeons, when he told the Royal Commission recently under
cross-examination : —
" The operation that I did in the first place, and which
I was the first to do, was done quite irrespective of any
experiments on animals; that is the cutting out of the stone
from the kidney. This was from knowledge acquired by
experience from operations on the liver and other organs in
the human subject."
You may turn where you like, and you will realise and see
the truth of my contention that the great claim of the vivisector
is not fulfilled in surgery, and that the greatest authorities in
abdominal surgery themselves confess that experiments on
animals have nothing to do with their success. I will take the
greatest vivisector of the day, and put him into the witness box,
( II )
and we will hear what he has to say on the subject, namely
Professor Starling. When he was cross-examined recently,
before the Royal Commission, he said: —
"The last experiment must always be on man."
If, then, the last experiment must always be on man, does it
not stand to reason that the first scientific experiment must
also be on man? and if the first scientific experiment must be on
man, then it is perfectly clear that all preceding experiments
upon the lower animals must have been unsatisfactory and
But now I will take another subject in connection with
surgery — that is brain surgery, for, of course, there is very little
surgery to be done in the thoracic region. The alleged triumphs
of surgery belong chiefly to the brain and abdomen.
We hear a good deal about brain surgery. We are told
thousands of lives have been saved because of the discovery of the
localisation of the brain centres, and that this discovery was due
entirely to experiments upon the brains of monkeys. Most of our
opponents deal in big figures, and very strong language.
Unfortunately for them, we get very few statistics published about
brain surgery : whilst the abdominal surgeons are prepared to
record their victories and triumphs, the brain surgeons are very
careful not to do so. We have challenged Sir Victor Horsley
again and again, but he declines to bring forward statistics. We
know how true it is in many of the brain surgical cases of to-day
that " the operation is successful, but the patient dies."
Now, with regard to the localisation of the brain centres. Is
it true we have gained that knowledge from experiments on
monkeys' brains ?
Charcot, a great French authority, and perhaps the greatest
authority upon the brain that ever lived, declared there was
nothing we could learn from an animal's brain except the
topography of the animal's brain.
We all know that if there is one thing more than another in
which the human differs from the sub-human it is in the character
of the brain, and here again is a point in which you may rely upon
it, we cannot possibly argue from animals to man. About three
years ago Dr. Samuel West, as President of the Medical Society
in London, gave an address on this very subject, and he then
announced to his audience that all our knowledge of the brain
centres depends upon the work of Dr. Hughlings Jackson, and he
never performed an experiment on an animal in his life. How
did he arrive at his conclusions ? They were scientific results, and
he obtained them from the human subject. He watched his
patients by the bedside; he saw the symptoms and physical signs
that were developed as a result of some lesion in the brain, and
then he carefully examined those brains afterwards in the dead-
house, and proved that in those cases, one after another, certain
symptoms always bore relation to certain brain lesions, and thus,
before he died, he was able to show scientifically cause and effect,
and map out the brain into the various centres, showing what
centres would be affected when cerlain results of irritation or
pressure took place in the human body. That was scientific.
That was judging upon the human species.
And here let me point to one centre, the centre of speech.
Just above the ear, upon the posterior lobe of what is called
the third left frontal convolution, there is a strange little centre
that governs speech. We know that centre. I had a case only a
short time ago, which I was able to diagnose immediately as a
case of paralysis of speech, caused by a little haemorrhage upon
that particular centre of the brain. Now tell me, how can you
possibly discover the speech centre in a human brain by
experiments upon an animal that cannot talk ? And if you
can discover a delicate centre such as that without experiments
on living animals, there should be no difficulty whatever in
discovering the other coarser centres, without resort to barbarism
of that description. So much then for surgery, whether abdominal
or of the brain.
Circulation of the Blood.
Let me touch on the question of physiology. We are told
knowledge is everything ; that practical value is not of so much
importance provided we get knowledge, because knowledge may
lead to wonderful results, and that we are dependent for our
knowledge in physiology — the intricate processes concerned in the
specialized work of the various organs of the body — we are depen-
dent, they say, upon experiments on animals. You ask for a case
in point, and immediately we are told — the circulation of the blood.
But Harvey himself declared that he did not discover the circulation
of the blood by means of experiments on animals. Any person,
by cutting one of his own arteries, as you constantly do
accidentally, with a piece of glass, or by some accident, discovers
at once that an artery contains red blood, the veins containing
purple blood. When a person dies and the heart stops, the
arteries become empty and the veins become full. The heart first
pumped that blood into the arteries ; it flows from the left side of
the heart to the arteries, and then through the veins up towards the
heart again upon the right side. The veins, differing from the
arteries, have peculiar valves in them, which only allow the blood
to pass in one direction. That was a discovery that could only be
discovered in the post-mortem room, as a matter of anatomical
Now Harvey argued, as he himself declared, that, seeing that
these delicate valves in the veins must be there for a purpose,
that purpose was evidently to secure that the blood went towards
the right side of the heart, and was not allowed to go back again
through those beautiful little cup-shaped valves. It was clear that
the blood must flow in a circle, since it was pumped from the left
side of the heart into vessels which presented no impediment to
its full force and then passed on through the valves of the veins
to the right side. The one thing that puzzled Harvey was, how
did the blood get from the arteries to the veins ? That he never
discovered. Harvey never did discover completely, to demon-
stration, the circulation of the blood.
All that Harvey did was to argue in a logical way that there
must be a circulation, owing to the anatomical arrangement of the
valves, and the distinctive difference between arteries and veins.
Harvey did perform experiments on animals — he tried to prove his
case by means of them, but it was not by these experiments that
he made the discovery. Anybody can prove it by the simple
device of a syringe and a little coloured fluid pumped into the
vessels of a dead body. Thirty years after Harvey's deductions.
Malpighi invented the microscope, and with the microscope came
to light those beautiful little capillary (hair-like) blood vessels,
which connected the arteries with the veins, and then it was that
Harvey's logical deduction was proved up to the hilt. Circulation
was demonstrated beyond all controversy, not by experiments on
animals, but simply through the agency of the microscope.
Then we are asked, " How are we to know the process of
digestion except by experiments on animals ? You cannot experi-
ment on human beings for that purpose!" But, tell me! You
get the gastric juice of a dog — a dog that can digest a bone — how
are you going to argue from a dog's stomach to a human stomach
in order to discover the relative nature of the digestive processes?
It is too ridiculous for comment.
Then numerous experiments are being conducted in regard to
diabetes, chiefly on the pancreas of dogs. But directly you touch
a delicate organ like the pancreas or sweetbread, you disorganise
the whole thing and render the condition abnormal. How can
you arrive at any correct physiological result ? And no one is
any 'forrader' on the question of diabetes than they were fifty
So with the gall bladder. Gall stones are actually put inside
the gall bladder of a dog. The dog is opened and sewn up, and
the animal is left suffering for days, until decomposition sets in,
and the poor thing dies in a raging fever. And yet nothing has
been gained by this cruelty. You have the case of Dr. Rose
Bradford's experiments upon thirty-nine fox terriers, in which one
kidney was taken out and a portion of another kidney excised.
The animal was taken back three or four times to the operating
table, and portion after portion of kidney was taken away, in
order to see how long the animal could live with as little kidney
as possible. He records himself — and here, mark you, we are
charged with exaggeration and misstatements, whereas for proof
we have to depend for our evidence upon what the vivisectors
themselves write— in this case Dr. Rose Bradford records how
these animals suffered, how they had vomiting, diarrhoea, fever,
ulcerations, and all the rest of it, for days and weeks and months,
whilst the hard eyes of the operator watched these poor little
intelligent creatures in their suffering. When asked at the Royal
Commission what had been gained by it, Dr. Rose Bradford said
that he had discovered that dogs never suffered from any disease
which was akin to human Bright's disease.
I might also mention the wonderful discovery of the double
action of the spinal nerves. Sir Charles Bell acknowledged that
experiments upon animals had done nothing but lead astray, and
that his knowledge of the double action of the spinal nerves was
gained from anatomical knowledge, and had nothing whatever to
do with experiments upon animals. Physiology, the whole way
through, owes nothing to vivisection.
Fashions in Medicine.
I will turn from that to the question of medicine. Now,
medicine we cannot call a science. It never will be. Medicine
runs in fashions, and there is as much fashion in medicine as
there is in ladies' hats, and medical fashions change with equal
rapidity. Constitutions differ most enormously. What you
might give in one case would certainly not do in another. Each
individual patient must be an individual study to each individual
medical man, for you cannot reason positively from one human
being to another, let alone from an animal to a human being.
You never know even that a dose of castor oil is going to take
precisely the same effect upon one person as another, and so with
Modern medicine has been running in the range of what is
called the serum and vaccine therapy.
This new fashion depends upon the theory that there is a
specific germ as the origin for every specific disease. It was the
invention of a French chemist, by the name of Pasteur, who, late
in life, some seven or eight years after he had been struck down
with partial brain paralysis, took for the first time in his life to
the study of medicine, and whether he did not understand
properly, or could not, I do not know, but he turned topsy-turvy
the discovery that had been made by a celebrated savant, Antoine
Bechamp, who had shown that certain organisms found in the
atmosphere were fermentative bodies, and further, that the same
kind of organisms existed in the human body, and that under the
action of disease, these strange little bodies became converted into
bacteria of various shapes. Pasteur turned this topsy-turvy,
and instead of accepting Bechamp's theory, that these micro-
organisms were the result of disease, he came to the conclusion
they were the cause. He jumbled up bodies of fermentation with
bodies of disease, and launched upon the world the germ theory
of disease, and the whole medical profession, owing to Pasteur's
standing as a chemist of renown, accepted this theory wholesale,
and have been running mad on it ever since.
The Germ Theory of Disease.
Professor Koch, of Berlin, when this theory first came out,
said, if true, it would have to conform to certain definite rules,
namely, if a germ were the causation of a disease it must always
be found in connection with that disease. Secondly, it should
never be found apart from that disease. Thirdly, it ought to be
cultivated outside the body, upon a separate medium; and lastly,
when inoculated into the lower animal it ought to produce a
disease similar to that which obtained in the human subject.
Now, how does that pan out ? The Editor of the " Lancet," the
authority that practically the whole medical professional men bow
to, stated on March 20th, 1909, in a leading article, as follows : —
" It is not at all rare to fail to find the causal organism
in an individual case of the disease, and the explanation
usually given is that the search has not been as yet suffi-
ciently thorough. Again, many organisms which are
considered to be causal, are frequently to be found in healthy
persons. The organisms of enteric fever, of cholera, and of
diphtheria may be cited as examples of this, and to explain
these facts we have to invoke the idea of healthy 'carriers'
of disease. When a causal organism is injected into an
animal, often it happens that it gives rise to a disease
bearing no clinical resemblance to the original malady.
Thus we cannot rely upon Koch's postulates as a decisive
test of a causal organism."
Now, seeing that Pasteur himself accepted that dictum of
Koch, practically the whole foundation of the system is gone, and
if the foundation is gone, the whole fabric of serum and vaccine
that has been built upon it must go too.
Now let us take the case of diphtheria, which is a disease
that is supposed to be due to the Klebs-Loeffler bacillus. This
bacillus I will guarantee to find in practically every mouth in this
audience to-night, and according to this new method of diagnosing
diphtheria, I should be perfectly justified, if I found it in your
throats, in certifying the medical officer of health to-morrow
morning, that you were suffering from diphtheria, and getting a
half-crown fee in each case for doing so.
We are told that anti-toxin, which is obtained from experi-
ments made on animals, has reduced the death-rate of diphtheria
from something like 30 or 40 per cent, down to 10 per cent. That
is according to the Metropolitan Asylums Board returns. The
peculiar thing is this, that it is true the reduction did commence
directly after anti-toxin was introduced, but when that reduction
began — it is passing strange, but the number of cases increased.
Where there were scores of diphtheria cases before anti-toxin was
introduced, they ran to thousands afterwards. Why? Because
the old diphtheria was diphtheria. It was the genuine article, but
the new diphtheria was not in any sense diphtheria, but in
numerous instances was just a sore throat with a germ in it. But
this sore throat was said to be due to this germ, and so it came
about that an ordinary sore throat which our grandmothers would
have cured by putting a stocking around the neck, and blowing
down the throat flour of sulphur, and giving a good dose of
brimstone and treacle, now became ' diphtheria.' Thus, by
throwing in a heap of cases, you reduce your mortality, because
you throw into the count an enormous number of common sore
throats. Whilst the deathrate in these cases treated with anti-
toxin were reduced from 30 per cent to 10 per cent, however, the
cases treated without anti-toxin were reduced from 13 to 3 per
cent. As a matter of fact the whole of these statistics are not
worth the paper they are written on, because the statistical basis
is absolutely fallacious. The only way in which you can possibly
judge diphtheria is by diphtheritic deaths. Let the Registrar
General speak. For fifteen years after anti-toxin was introduced
compared with the fifteen years before, the diphtheria death-rate
increased no less than 25 per cent. These are genuine diphtheria
deaths that you cannot mistake. Any improvement in diphtheria
has had no more to do with anti-toxin than it has with the man in
The diphtheria death-rate began to increase as soon as ever
the new Education Act came in. By cramming the whole of the
insanitary board schools with children by the score, by the
hundred, so that they were packed in any place, where they could
not be properly accommodated, like herrings in a box, the air
became impure and diphtheria spread proportionately. Now,
with enlarged board schools, airy premises, with so many cubic
feet for each child, and so much play ground space, now being
erected all over the country, diphtheria begins to go down. The
basis of these so-called zymotic diseases is insanitary conditions,
and by pumping in these filthy serums, poison is added to poison
in the human body. They are going the wrong way to work
altogether. They should seek to remove the cause that produces
Plague and Consumption.
Take the question of plague. Years ago plague was very
rare in India, but since they have started sera and vaccines, they
have really been giving the people plague, and the plague has
become endemic. More than a million natives are being swept
off the scene by plague every year, and yet here are the festering
refuse heaps and insanitary conditions — horrid conditions which
the rats had to help the Indian Government to get rid of, and then
the rats are blamed for having produced the natural results of
insanitation. Instead of sending sanitary engineers to put the
matter right they are sending these filthy tubes of serum, this
dung hill medicine, as Sir Benjamin Ward called it, which only
made the natives weaker than before.
We are told, too, that tuberculosis has declined, and that
that depends upon the discovery of the tubercle bacillus. Why !
tuberculosis had gone down 50 per cent, before the germ was
discovered. The disease has been going down ever since, in
proportion as the sanitary conditions of the country have
improved, as back to back houses have been removed, streets
made wider, good water brought into the neighbourhood, and
proper sewage conditions carried out. And here is a striking fact,
and I want you to think it over. I went carefully through the last
return of the Registrar General the other day, and I find that in
practically every case where these inoculations have been used
for the cure of disease, the death-rate has gone up. In all these
diseases — scarlet fever, measles, and all zymotic diseases — which
are dependent entirely upon sanitary conditions for their
prevention, the death-rate has gone down.
This is one way in which we could get rid of the trouble.
People are occupied, medical men are occupied, too much with
curing disease instead of being occupied in preventing it. Instead
of medical men running after these fashions of the times, if they
would help John Burns to pass his Bill for the better housing of
the working classes, we should then arrive at something like a
scientific solution of the great problems of disease in this country.
The Testing: of Drug's.
Now I come to another subject, and that is the question of
drugs. I hear people say, " How are you going to test your
drugs thoroughly ? Surely you would not start by testing drugs
upon human beings ; you would test them on animals ? " You
cannot argue from animals to man, and never was this so true as
in the case of drugs. Supposing you were to let some rabbits out
into a field of belladonna, and you found those rabbits ate up that
belladonna and grew fat on it, and then, judging from that, you
might say to your wife the next morning," I say, Mary, the rabbits
have flourished on that belladonna; I think we should give it to
the children, and see if it will fatten them up too." This would
be followed by a coroner's inquest, which shows you that you
cannot argue from animals to men. Goats can eat hemlock with
impunity, but it is fatal to the human species. Then take the
little hedgehog, a most interesting little creature. We talk very
often about such animals in a supercilious way, but we do not
understand them. The more you come to know these creatures,
the more you will be surprised at the intelligence they possess.
We do not know the extent of it. Take the little hedgehog.
Supposing you were to try and experiment on that, you will be
surprised when I tell you that a hedgehog can swallow as much
opium as a Chinaman can smoke in a fortnight, and it can wash
it down with as much prussic acid as would kill a whole regiment
of soldiers, and still be as lively as ever. How are you, then,
going to judge from animals to men ? The short-tailed monkey
would be killed with the smallest quantity of strychnine, and the
long-tailed monkey could take as much as you like. Then take
the cat. Citric acid, the active principle in lemons, will kill a cat
immediately, and if we were to judge the effect of citric acid upon
the familiar cat, we should never have known the enjoyment of a
glass of lemon juice in the summer. Many other instances could
be cited; until you have tried a drug on man you cannot tell
whether the effect will be similar or quite different. It is
impossible to argue from animals to men ; it is clearly out of the
Is Vivisection Cruel ?
Well, now, having dealt with the unscientific character of
vivisection, having shown it to be misleading and immoral in
character, I want to ask the question, is it cruel?
I can quite understand somebody saying: supposing it is mis-
leading — well, after all, we do kill these creatures, and we kill
them for food. (I myself have been a vegetarian for 35 years.)
The argument will be used in that way, and therefore if there is
no cruelty about it, what does it matter? Is there cruelty
connected with this practice ? That is the point we have got to
argue. Let us go to the vivisectors, and let them give an answer.
Here is what Professor Thane said before the Royal Commission,
that the removal of a portion of the second kidney, or the taking
away of the thyroid gland, " makes the animal very ill," and he
refers to other operations which are " followed by severe illness."
Then again he says, in regard to Certificate B., that where
the animals are operated upon, and then allowed to recover
afterwards, they do suffer severely whilst under observation in
the experiment. Then with regard to Certificate A. That is the
one used mainly for inoculation. In some cases the injection is
followed, said the Inspector, by " great pain and suffering." He
mentions the injection of tetanus toxin and the injection of
plague also. And Professor Starling, the vivisector, gives it as his
opinion that " in a pathological laboratory a certain amount of
suffering may be an essential part of the experiment."
Professor Pembrey, who went before the Royal Commission,
said, "I think painful experiments are necessary; I myself have
performed them. I mean, painful experiments as against experi-
ments under anaesthetics. A common sense view should be taken
of this question, and pain must be admitted. I admit that I have
done painful experiments, and I am not ashamed of it. Pain is
part of the scheme of nature!" He added that, given enough, the
animal would be relieved by the pain producing fainting. This
was spoken boldly before the Royal Commission. Will you tell
me, after that, vivisection is not cruel ?
Where Anaesthetics are Useless.
But now you will say, " What about anaesthetics ? Does not
the Act order anaesthetics ? Are not anaesthetics used ? " Let us
look at this question. There are three kinds of experiments —
first there are cutting operations, which are performed under
anaesthetics. The licence enforces that. Where an anaesthetic is
given the animal is killed before it recovers. According to the
last return, 2,584 of these operations were performed in the
previous year (1912). And then there are the experiments where
an animal is cut, perhaps some organ or other is removed, and the
animal is allowed to recover, and linger for a certain time
afterwards. Even after that animal has suffered pain, the operator
need not kill it, because he is under no obligation to kill it until
the object of the experiment has been obtained. There were 2,240
of these. There remains the third class of experiments — inocula-
tion. These are inoculations for every kind of disease, of various
drugs and poisons, and so on. There were no less than 78,550 of
these experiments last year — the very worst kind of vivisection, in
which no anaesthetic was used. And many of these cases, the
Inspector admits, were productive of pain, and must be. Take for
instance Dr. Klein's experiments on cats' eyes; they were actually
published some years ago in the Local Government Board's Blue
Book. Dr. Klein illustrates himself what was the effect of the
inoculation upon the cats' eyes. They were swollen up to an
enormous size, and the whole eye ultimately presented the
appearance of a crater-like ulcer. What do you think of that
vivisection? You know what it means to get anything in your
eye, and here we have the agony of the cat, whose irritated eyes
were held open for days and weeks. That is " painless " inocula-
tion. The Research Defence Society will tell you in support of it,
that this is nothing — it is the prick of a pin. But it is the
development that we have to look at.
How Anaesthetics are Administered.
Then take the cutting of the organs of animals, like those
experiments on the kidneys of fox-terriers, which I have men-
tioned. I quite admit that practically every animal is put under
an anaesthetic for the cutting operation, but before ever that
anaesthetic is administered, I suppose in every case without
exception, an injection of morphia is given. Morphia has simply
the effect of stupefying the animal to a certain extent. It destroys
its power of resistance, but it does not destroy its sense of pain,
unless a lethal dose is given. When the animal is therefore
stupefied by the morphia, the anaesthetic is given. They dare not
give it too much anaesthetic ; if they did they would lose their
animal, especially a dog, which is very susceptible indeed. It is
only by the greatest care that you can keep a dog alive under full
anaesthesia, especially when chloroform is used, which is of the
most deadly nature to the canine race. When the anaesthetic is
given you dare not give too much to the animal. It already lies
like a log on the table under the influence of the narcotic, and you
cannot tell how much that animal may be suffering.
When we perform a major operation, we appoint one man to
look after the anaesthetic and nothing else. Is that the case with
the animals ? Very often the whole thing is mechanically
regulated by the laboratory boy, from the next room. The
vivisectors told the Royal Commission that the anaesthetic was
adminstered in proportion to the body-weight of the animal.
Can they tell by the body-weight how much is needed ? Let me put
it in this way. No man looks solely after the anaesthetisation
of that animal. The experimenter may (look at itoccasionally,
but that is nothing. The animal has hacMts power of resistance
destroyed by the morphia or a little drop of curare, which
paralyses the whole muscular system, and leaves the senses as
vivid as before. The animal lies in that state. Now, I ask you,
is there one solitary surgeon in the world, with a reputation to
lose, who would dare to operate upon a human being — to perform
a major operation — under circumstances of that description ?
Would he dare to pass in a whiff of anaesthetic according to the
weight of the patient upon the operating table, without having a
man to watch every breath and to watch the conjunctiva, and to
notice every little turn and twist that may take place in the move-
ments of the patient before him ? No ! And therefore I want to
know, if no surgeon would dare to perform a major operation upon
a human being under such circumstances, what right has anyone
to perform such an operation upon a poor helpless dog, simply
because it cannot defend itself?
The Home Secretary's Admission.
Once again I will put the vivisector into the witness box, and
clinch the matter in a way which cannot be gainsaid. They used
to divide these operations into two classes — those which were
painful, and those which were painless. A few years ago they
stopped that, and a member of Parliament asked the Home
Secretary why it was that these experiments were no longer
divided into painful and painless ? The answer was that in many
cases the operator himself could not tell whether the animal
was 'suffering or not. They had to give it up entirely, and no
longer make the division of painful and painless experiments.
With an answer such as that, repeated by Professor Thane before
the Royal Commission, we can only come to the conclusion that
if the operator himself could not tell whether the animal was
suffering or not when placed on the torture trough, it lay there
under a ghastly risk. I think I have shown clearly that vivisection
is immoral, unscientific and misleading ; that it is cruel and that
it is useless, and under these circumstances I want to know what
we can possibly do with such a practice, except to demand of the
House of Commons that it shall be totally abolished ?
Bui, bear with me just another moment or two. A person
will say what are you going to do ? If you are going to do away
with experiments On animals what will take its place ? That is a
foolish sort of argument. Because they got rid of a certain evil,
which has been proved to be useless and unscientific, why should
something else be needed to take its place ? The thing is
wrong, and you do not want anything to take its place. But how
are you to learn to get advancement in the treatment of human
ailments and disease ? What is the right way ?
The True Way to Learn.
Well, I will not shirk the position. There is only one way by
which you can learn how to treat human disease, and that is by
experimentation upon human beings. "Ah!" you say, "you are
as bad as the vivisectors." My friends, no. There is no need for
us to experiment upon human beings. Nature herself is experi-
menting every hour, every day, every week, and every month of
the year. Nature experiments in accidents and disease of every
kind. These experiments are passing before the eyes of the
doctor all the way through, and if he will keep his eyes open, if he
will take notice of the symptoms and physical signs, and if he will
compare these symptoms and signs by the bedside with post-
mortem room results and thoroughly judge of cause and effect, he
will be able in all these cases of nature's experiments to put to the
test the best methods that he can possibly devise for their allevia-
tion and cure, and that without unscientific, cruel, misleading and
immoral processes such as those which I have denounced
For instance, we hear a great deal about goitre, an enlarge-
ment of the thyroid gland. What has been discovered by
experiments on monkeys ? Why, long years ago the origin of
goitre was found out in Berne, in Switzerland, by experimentation
upon eighteen patients who had enlarged thyroid glands. They
had them removed for the purpose of treating the patients, and
then it was found that the absence of the thyroid gland produced
a condition known as myxoedema, or cretinism. Why did they
want to start the wholesale excision of the thyroid glands in
monkeys to prove the same thing? We have continuously the
experimentation upon animals in order to prove opinions which
are already thoroughly and absolutely established.
I think now we have seen from every point of view how
absolutely baseless is the claim for vivisection, and I will not
occupy your time further, because I am hoping that there may be
some questions that will be asked, and that they will, perhaps,
illustrate some further points which I have not been able to touch
upon to-night. But before sitting down, I should like to ask the
question, how this practice is to be dealt with, and by what
The Restriction Bill.
There is already a Bill before the House of Commons for the
total abolition of this practice. What we say is this, that if this
practice is so absolutely bad, immoral, unscientific, misleading,
cruel and useless, then there is no ground whatever for keeping
such a measure as the Vivisection Act upon the Statute Book.
To truckle or to compromise with the evil we consider a treachery
to the poor creatures who have got to suffer. There is another
Bill before the House of Commons. This is a restriction Bill,
presented by another Society, which is called an Anti- Vivisection
Society ; but it would perpetuate vivisection, only with restrictions.
The promoter of that Bill says in effect, "Here in my Bill is
provision for inspectorships, and it propounds to Parliament that
every animal, during a cutting operation, shall be placed under an
anaesthetic, and that the inspectors shall be present to see that
the anaesthetic is properly administered." Now, the Government
Inspector has always shown himself favourable to vivisection,
and every annual Government report points to the same thing.
One of the most recently appointed inspectors was a member of
the Research Defence Society until he received the appointment,
when he resigned.
The Government, like all Governments, is always ready for a
compromise, and in compliance with this wish they have added
two extra whole time inspectors, and have appointed a superin-
tendent whole time inspector as well. Now you see the effect that
the pursuance of this restrictive policy has had. It has simply
created an additional vested interest in vivisection itself, and they
make now vivisection practically the bread and butter of these
paid officials, and this makes it more difficult for us than ever to
get rid of it. This is called a half measure — they say they are
giving us half a loaf; we reply that it is giving us a stone for
bread, because it is perpetuating the evil practice, and it is
professing to perpetuate it by suggesting that there is something
in the practice which is good. Are there any benefits whatever
which the public have derived from it ? I say there are none, and
that you are exploiting these poor creatures for your own cowardly
designs. There is another objection to this proposed restriction.
How are you going to deal with the pain and suffering that follow
inoculations ? It is useless to say that the animals are to be killed
when they begin to show signs of suffering. The suffering is a
part of the study. And even if you could enforce such a rule,
how could all the animals be watched continually for signs of
pain ? Animals usually endure in silence, and there are the long
nights of suffering, when the vivisectors are absent. Inspectors
are clearly useless for this.
The "Higher Animals' Bill."
There is yet another Bill, and this seeks to take the higher
animals out — it is to take out dogs, cats, monkeys and so on. But
here again I say : What are you doing ? I agree with Jeremy
Bentham.it is not a question whether animals can reason much or
little, or whether they can understand more or less, but whether
they can feel? I do not see why all the rest of the animals should
suffer because a certain few privileged ones are taken out, and why
vicarious sacrifice should be resorted to in that way. By taking
out these few animals you are practically justifying the vivisection
of the lower animals, which you think are not quite so intelligent
as those you are seeking to protect.
I say that what we want to do is not to occupy the public
mind with the differences in the animals, but to show the evil of
vivisection itself, and when we have shown that, and proved that
the practice of vivisection is bad and wicked, then vivisection
itself will be swept away, and the whole animal creation will
be free. The " Higher Animals' Bill " practically condones the
You see we have our work before us, and there are great
difficulties in the way. The whole medical profession stands up
the one for the other, and the way they do that makes a great dead
wall which seems almost impregnable. But so long as we have
God and right upon our side, we are bound to succeed. There
never was a movement yet, however great the forces that were
against it, which aimed at abolishing an evil, but sooner or later
that evil was shattered to pieces. They told Wilberforce, when he
proposed the abolition of the slave trade, that the slave trade was
bound up with the prestige of the English people, that the slaves
did not suffer, that they were little more than beasts, and even
Bishops in their pulpits advocated the continuance of the slave
trade. Wilberforce said, " I care nothing for that. The one idea
with me is that these men are flesh and blood like ourselves, and
that they have rights as well as we have." And he went to the
country, and touched the great throbbing heart of the British
people, until thirty millions of money was paid down, and, thank
God, slavery, so far as English authority is concerned, was ended.
The Lesson of all Reforms.
And even Shaftesbury, who was one of a little band of
reformers, carried his point in the same way. They were taking
children from the workhouses and orphanages, and bringing them
up here to the North of England, to work in the factories from
early morning until late at night. " It is blood money," said
Shaftesbury. Even the eloquence of John Bright and of Gladstone
was used to maintain the infamous traffic, but Shaftesbury said,
" I care nothing for that. It is a foul and wicked practice, and it
will have to go." And he never rested until the Factory Act was
passed, and that abominable system swept away. The odds
against him were greater, far greater, and the vested interests far,
far deeper, than those which we have to face.
Even Howard, after he had tramped from prison to prison, to
expose the dreadful conditions that existed in his time, was told
that they must go on. Women, for instance — witches, as they
were called, who were lying festering in their own filth for months
together — were put into Lancaster Gaol becauseiothers had a right
to put them there, and, it was said, " they deserved it," and even
there again the Bishops maintained that the system must be kept
going, as evil must be rigorously punished. Poor Howard died
without seeing his object gained, but the death of Howard brought
to mind the words he had said in his life time, and an agitation
was commenced, as a result of which the prisons were over-
hauled, and the foul system was ended.
It was exactly the same in our lunatic asylums, where great
reforms were brought about, and we have little idea of the
enormous opposition that the reformers had to fight against.
But they went forward, for they knew that they were right, and
that they had God upon their side, and they were not going to
bend down at the behest of men of means and influence, who spoke
What has been done before can be done again. We are here
to ask you to stand by us and to help us, and to be determined
that nothing shall be done until this foul blot upon the Christian
standard of this country has for ever been wiped away. Remember
this, my friends :—
The hills have been steep for man's mounting,
The woods have been dense for his axe,
The stars have been thick for his counting,
The sands have been wide for his tracks.
The sea has been deep for his diving,
The poles have been wide for his sway,
But bravely he's proved by his striving
That where there's a will there's a way.
F. J. BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 23207
The British Union
for the Abolition of Vivisection.
(The British Anti-Vivisection Society.)
Foundress. FRANCES POWER COBBE.
President and Hon. Sec : Hon. Treasurer :
WALTER R. HADWEN, J.P., M.D., etc. The Rev. J. STRATTON, M.A.
Secretary: Miss B. E. KIDD.
Offices: 32 Charing Cross, London, S.W.
From the Autobiography of Miss F. P. COBBE,
"To those of my readers who may desire to contribute to the
Anti-Vivisection Cause, and who have shared my views on it as set
forth in my numberless pamphlets and letters, and to those specially
who, like myself, intend to bequeath money to carry on the war
against scientific cruelty, I now earnestly say as my final counsel :
44 Support the British Union."
In the case of benefactors desiring to bequeath legacies in support
of the Cause, they are respectfully urged to state clearly in their
Wills, 4, The British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection," and to
make them payable to the Treasurer for the time being.
Form of Bequest.
I bequeath unto the Society called THE BRITISH UNION
FOR THE ABOLITION OF VIVISECTION, the sum of
free of Legacy Duty, and I direct that the same shall be paid to
the Treasurer forthe time being of such last- mentioned Society.
By virtue of the Act of Victoria, cap. 26, all Wills and Codicils must be in
writing, signed by the Testator, and attested by two witnesses in the presence of the
Testator and of each other.
A Donation of Five Pounds and upwards constitutes a Life Member.
An Annual Subscription of Ten Shillings constitutes an Annual Member.
Remittances by Crossed Cheque or Postal Order. Smaller Donations gratefully
An Annual Payment of 2s. 6d. constitutes an Associate of the Union.
Pamphlets by Dr. HADWEN, J. P.
c . , Per
Some Recent Vivisection Practices in English
Laboratories = Id. 1/-
A Medical View of the Vivisection Question 2d. 2/-
The Antitoxin Treatment of Diphtheria - 2d 1/6
The Cult of the Vivisector = = - £d. 4d.
Tuberculosis and Cow's Milk - = = 1d. 1/-
Was Jenner a Charlatan ? - = = 1d. 1/-
Debate between Dr. Hadwenand Mr. Stephen
Paget at Shrewsbury. - - - 2d 1/6
Debate between Dr. Hadwen and Dr. Eastham \(\. \/~
Correspondence between Dr. Hadwen and
Sir Victor Horsley = - - - Id. 1/-
Views of Men and Women of Note on the
Vivisection Question - 2d. 2/-
(Illustrated -with Portraits).
The Case against Vaccination - - - 1d. 1/-
The Controversy in "The Standard" - 3d. 2/6
A Vivisection Controversy — Mr. Stephen
Paget'sclaims.and Dr. Madwen's answers 2d. 2/-
Antisepsis or Apsepsis - - - - 1d. 9d.
Jennerism and Pasteurism - - - Id. 9d
By Miss FRANCES POWER COBBE.
The Early History of the Anti-Vivisection Movement.
Light in Dark Places
By BEATRICE E. KIDD.
Why We Object to a Restriction Bill. Id., 9d. doz.
Do you Know? (Illustrated). \d,6d.perdoz.
The Policy of Abolition. Id , //- per doz.
What about Anaesthetics? \d., 6d. per doz.
By Miss A. F. WHITELEY.
Some Medical Views of Vivisection. 3d. each, 2/6 doz.
F. J . BROOKE, Printer and Bookbinder, 2 Westgate Street, Gloucester. 23204
•ffl IHIN*) W» w*
US MUI. UtNThH Lfl